China?

It's a capitalist state in which a certain portion is still owned by the state, so it is "state-ist" or "state-capitalist" in that respect, but there is certainly no workers' state (degenerated or otherwise) involved anymore.

It's a capitalist state in which a certain portion is still owned by the state, so it is "state-ist" or "state-capitalist" in that respect, but there is certainly no workers' state (degenerated or otherwise) involved anymore.

I agree here. I would typify China as being an "authoritarian state-capitalist" society ("state-capitalism" should not be confused here with bullocks theories about the Soviet Union, but read as a capitalist society with a bourgeoisie with heavy state intervention). It's certainly been seen by the western bourgeoisies as an example and possible alternative for neoliberalism.

I agree here. I would typify China as being an "authoritarian state-capitalist" society ("state-capitalism" should not be confused here with bullocks theories about the Soviet Union, but read as a capitalist society with a bourgeoisie with heavy state intervention). It's certainly been seen by the western bourgeoisies as an example and possible alternative for neoliberalism.

3rd'ed ... However isn't the CWI line to say China isn't capitalism yet or something ?

3rd'ed ... However isn't the CWI line to say China isn't capitalism yet or something ?

The CWI line is that China is on the road to capitalism but isn't fully there yet as some large parts of the economy are still under statecontrol. Though this is exponentially diminishing.

since nationalization is IMO not a socialist measure I say China is fully capitalist (but nationalization can have socialist intentions, hence the word socialist in the "Union of Socialist Soviet Republics"; but in China this clearly isn't the case). Nationalization is also a capitalist measure. What else are we seeing during periods of war and crisis? To me, only full workers' control over production is socialist in character and form.

The CWI line is that China is on the road to capitalism but isn't fully there yet as some large parts of the economy are still under statecontrol. Though this is exponentially diminishing.

That's a pretty silly line to have.

Is something 14% socialist and 86% capitalist? Or 8% socialist and 92% capitalist?

That's a pretty silly line to have.

Is something 14% socialist and 86% capitalist? Or 8% socialist and 92% capitalist?

I haven't read it myself as of yet, but I think this article covers the topic.

The CWI line is that China is on the road to capitalism but isn't fully there yet as some large parts of the economy are still under statecontrol. Though this is exponentially diminishing.

Ya i think at face value china is a capitalist country , there may be some stuff im missing and will read the article but why not consider a country like say sweden the same as china since sweden have a "large state" in an economic perspective.

What's important is that a capitalist mode of production doesn't need a state ruled by the bourgeoisie. Napoleon III's empire was capitalist, just like China's and Iran's economies are capitalist. Also extracting surpluses through state ownership has nothing to do with socialism.

In our view – the view of the leadership of the CWI – Vincent’s characterisation is too categorical. The direction of travel of the Chinese state is clear enough, from the former Maoist-Stalinist planned economy, based on nationalised property, towards a capitalist economy. But, however powerful the locomotive, the train has not yet arrived at its destination. It is premature to declare: “Capitalism, of a peculiar Chinese type, has been restored”.

Btw, I don't agree with her. The locomotive never stops: I think that this was something we needed to learn from reading Capital - dynamics. It is insane to declare that China is moving towards a static form of capitalism.

I'm not exactly sure what would be considered "socialist" in China anymore, and completely disagree with the CWI's position on the matter. Is it considered not-yet capitalist because it has some nationalized industries? Because so do nearly all bourgeois states. Is it the fact that the party is in control? The CPC isn't communist at all, or socialist. Is it because workers are organized? Because they're not; unauthorized unions are banned and official unions are controlled by CPC bureaucrats.

So what, exactly, is there? I honestly would like to see someone defend this position (without having to read a massive CWI article on the matter).

I brought that up at another discussion, and a comrade said it had nothing to do with the condition of the working class or human rights etc but that of some characteristic of the chinese state and the role it played in the economy saying something like the state still has the power to reverse capitalism if it wants to ....... but doesn't most states have that ... the power to take over capitalism that is ...

I brought that up at another discussion, and a comrade said it had nothing to do with the condition of the working class or human rights etc but that of some characteristic of the chinese state and the role it played in the economy saying something like the state still has the power to reverse capitalism if it wants to ....... but doesn't most states have that ... the power to take over capitalism that is ...

Reverse capitalism? "Bureaucratic socialism" was a product of nationalization in a society with a peasant majority. The Chinese State cannot simply "reverse" the process because the current capitalist development created a modern proletariat. It also cannot simply take over the whole capitalists system. Even if it did it would not be "bureaucratic socialism" but capitalism with a state monopoly.

I agree with the majority here that have labeled it as "authoritarian state capitalist" The few and increasingly diminishing parts of the economy under "state control" are generally speaking state control on paper only. It has become one of the favorite capitalist playground to super-exploit the workers and the way they run some of these sweatshops: miserable working conditions with severe restrictions on what workers can do and having their residence almost adjacent to the sweatshop itself, are similar to the condition of workers of industrial Britain in Marx' time.

The left groups that continue to call China a socialist/workers state, deformed or otherwise, is a bit embarassing.

Nice necro. But yeah, the china debate is always interesting. Personally I firmly agree with the majority of my own section, the swedish section of CWI, and the chinese section, who by the way,as far as I know at least are the only sections that have an official view on the matter. Capitalism has, since the mid to late ninties, clearly been restored in China, even though remnants of statecontrol still exist.

I agree here. I would typify China as being an "authoritarian state-capitalist" society. It's certainly been seen by the western bourgeoisies as an example and possible alternative for neoliberalism.

Almost fascist perhaps? While clearly not fascist, in the traditional meaning of the term, in its development or indeed current state I think there are some interesting similarities. As someone pointed out above; the intent behind or direction of a nationalisation programme can be socialistic in character but state control does not equate to socialism (nearly every advanced bourgeois state in the West has intervened in the economy to one degree or another). For me the PRC is capitalist and the real question should be whether or not it is imperialist, and if not is it developing in that direction?